Does this sound like good parenting to you? Sailing around the world in a 36 foot sailboat with two children, age one and three, sounds reckless to me. That kind of voyage is very dangerous, and those undertaking it do so with the knowledge that catastrophe is a very real possibility. I just don’t see how a thoughtful person could think this is a risk they should expose their young children to. Granted, the father is a Coast Guard-licensed captain, but that just tells me he should know better.
Would you try something like this with your children, or approve if a family member proposed it?
I think those people are crazy. Lot’s of people think I’m crazy. At least I’m not that crazy, if those kids want to sail around world when they are adults they can make the decision for themselves.
I agree with you, but the reasoning behind not charging for rescues is, people will think about the cost and not call for help until it is too late. It is more expensive, but fewer people die. That is the reasoning with regards to mountain rescues on Mt. McKinley, anyway.
I don’t know if there’s a way to enforce it for sailboats, but there should be rescue insurance required for people involved in risky activities that could create a high public cost. Certainly it could be required for mountain climbers. After the fact I’m not sure what to do, I suppose people ought to pay something based on means when costs exceed some level.
Lame reasoning. Maybe I haven’t been exposed to too much of this, but the only charges for rescue or search that I’ve heard of has been because it was due to negligence on the part of the requester. This is clearly one of those cases. If people are thinking about costs because they did something really stupid they can weigh that against the necessity for rescue. It’s an incentive to not do stupid things, really, which is what we need more of.
People go on long sailing voyages with children all the time. When we lived aboard with our then-newborn, we had boat neighbors who were moving back ashore so their daughter could have the high school experience. Up until then, the three of them sailed everywhere - including across oceans - in a 30’ or 32’ sailboat (It’s been years, I don’t remember the specifics.)
Unless you read sailing magazines, you don’t hear about the voyages that don’t have emergencies, and even then, not everyone writes up their adventures for publication. Things can happen to even the most experienced sailors - ships sink, boats capsize, people die. But people die on the highways, and in their bath tubs, and by being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
There are no laws against people taking their boats out of sight of land, there are no licensing requirements unless you take passengers for hire, beyond registering or documenting the vessel. Common sense dictates that one does not undertake a voyage beyond one’s abilities. And if my husband’s experience is any indication, they don’t just give out Coast Guard Captain’s licenses - you have to study and pass a pretty comprehensive test and provide proof of experience. And at one point, we owned a 37’ sailboat that was more than capable of crossing the ocean. I don’t see how their voyage was reckless. What if it had just been the two adults and one had a heart-attack - would that have been as bad? Worse? Less bad?
Even with a fantasy world absolute guarantee that the children could not get sick, there are way too many dangers on the open sea for such small children. These parents should be criminally charged with some kind of endangerment. What assholes.
I was an Electronics Tech (ET2) in the Coast Guard killing time waiting for transportation at Base Miami Beach. I had repaired the AM radio on one of the 42’ boats and the duty boat crew (3 guys, a Coxswain (BM2), an engineer (FN) , and a seaman (SA)) was taking me out 5 miles or so to test it. The radio worked. It worked well enough to get a distress call. An 8 month pregnant woman started going into labor about 5 minutes after her cruise ship left port. And she wanted her baby born in the USA, not in the medical section of the liner where there was a trained physician. So we had to go pick her up.
Short version: I ended up delivering her baby while we were headed to shore. The cable ties in my tool bag came in handy to tie off the umbilical. And I had dykes (diagonal cutters). I was plenty pissed off when we got there. The nicest thing I said was, “Who the Hell takes a cruise when they’re 8 months gone?”
Other than I might want a slightly bigger boat, say 45’-50 feet. I agree with you.
People have taken their kids a across oceans for hundreds of years. A modern sailboat is much better equipped to carry children across the Pacific than the Mayflower was to carry them across the Atlantic.
So when we fast forward to when the Enterprise leaves on its five year mission will it be reckless and criminal to have children onboard?
Let’s pretend that someone on the Dope had no knowledge of sailing or boats and is so terrified of Cthulhu that he won’t even go swimming in the ocean. Such a person, should he exist, would want to ask why it’s such an obvious danger.
Is it because a sick toddler will need medical care within a short timespan and a sailboat will likely be several days away from a port at any given time? Is it because even with modern positioning and weather gadgets, a boat can still get stuck in a storm? As in, a storm that will flip the boat over is wider than the boat’s ability to travel before it arrives, irrespective of advanced warning.
There’s nothing wrong with sailing around the world or backpacking the Appalachian Trail or taking a month long safari with your kids. Yes, these activities are riskier than living in suburbia, but different strokes for different folks. I certainly wouldn’t put these people in the “reckless” category.
They took a risk, it didn’t work out like they planned. So they called for help. Glad it worked out for them.
Come to think of it, what’s wrong with having children work in mines. Heck that was happening 200 years after the Mayflower. Modern people are pussies!
kids that age regularly get ill, especially a 1 year old with an undeveloped immune system. even ones not potentially life threatening are likely harder to endure in that environment.
sure back in the old days people did this with kids. they also threw the dead kids overboard with little regret.
kids that age can travel virtually, electronically or hardcopy. they also can more easily do short trips. plus they might enjoy the destination but they don’t enjoy the transit by boat/car/train/air.
Not reckless. People take all sorts of risks while raising children, and most folks who aren’t familiar with some activities aren’t very good at analyzing those risks. I know parents who’ve taken kids of all ages on hiking, skiing, and kayaking trips that would scare those who are unfamiliar with those activities. And they have objective risks - but so does all of life. People choose where to draw the line at what’s acceptable risk in different places.
Yeah but is a kid more likely to have his weak immune system compromised isolated on a boat with 3 other people, or on dry land on a day when they go to daycare and the grocery store?